Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Seasonal (Judas)

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Bruce, Well, no. Your proposed original text omits at table , which in Mk 14:18 helps to set the scene for what follows. ... Again, no. It merely says
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce Brooks wrote:

      > .....to take only one passage, have you given
      > full weight to the structural and narrative anomaly in the Last Supper
      > scene? I repeat the key portion (Mk 14:16-26) here for convenience:
      > [16] And the disciples set out and went to the city, and found it as he
      > had told them; and they prepared the Passover.
      > [17] When it was evening, he came *with the Twelve.*
      > (There follows what I suggest is the interpolation:)
      > [18] And as they were at table eating,

      > ...........
      > [22] And as they were eating .......

      > I think it will be agreed that (1) the passage reads perfectly smoothly
      > without the material which I have here indented,


      Well, no. Your proposed original text omits "at table", which in Mk 14:18
      helps to set the scene for what follows.

      > ..... 14:20, can only have been the identification of the betrayer.

      Again, no. It merely says that the betrayer is one of those partaking in the
      meal. The betrayer is not thereby identified. Check any decent commentary if
      you doubt me.

      I wonder if you've taken into account Mark's known habit of interleaving
      different stories. If he can do that, he can certainly interleave subtexts
      of the same story, and I can see why you might mistake them for

      > I am not convinced by
      > the thought that the core of Mark was its passion narrative, though I admit
      > I have run across it in various forms. Mark seems to me to have a lot more
      > than that in mind, focal though it doubtless is, and I don't find a point at
      > which thus Urmarkus might be thought to have begun.

      I am not proposing an Urmarkus. I am merely supporting the idea, stimulated
      by Marxsen's suggestion that Mark composed his gospel backwards, that
      chs.14-16 were penned (just) prior to chs. 1-13.

      > This dating of Mark [ca. 70] rests solely on Mk 13, and I am not convinced
      > that Mk 13 is integral to Mark, or for that matter that Mk 13 has to refer
      > to the events of the year 70. Taking Mark as a whole, there are signs of
      > pre-Pauline doctrine and practice in the Pauline literature, and signs of
      > some of those same beliefs and practices may also be found in Mark.

      It needs a carefully worked out methodology to be able to distinguish
      between evidence for interpolations and evidence for the author's use of
      earlier sources. Many commentators have failed to distinguish properly
      between these.

      > The key position here, I suppose, is whether it is possible to detect strata
      > in Mark .....


      > ....... Mk 6:14 King Herod heard of it, for . . .
      > For what? For the rumor of the Twelve fanning out over the countryside in
      > teams, stirring up the populace? Not a bit of it: "for Jesus' name had
      > become known. Some said, John the Baptizer . . ."
      > See? Herod and his spies in the countryside completely ignore the
      > missionarizing of the Twelve, and concentrate instead on the teaching of
      > Jesus, back in 6:6.

      You've read too much into it. The focus on Jesus here is simply because Mark
      wants to raise the question of Jesus' role (6:14-16) as a suitable
      introduction to the story of John the Baptist's death (6:17-29).

      > .................
      > 3:20, "And the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat."
      > 3:21 "And when his friends heard it, they went out to seize him, for they
      > said, He is beside himself."
      > Crazy. And for what?

      It doesn't matter *why* they're crazy. However it does matter *who* is
      crazy. OI PAR AUTOU here is better translated as "his family". Mark has
      succeeded, despite the clumsiness of the narrative, in running down Jesus'
      family (of whom James was the most prominent member).

      Overall you seem to be expecting in the finished gospel a degree of detailed
      literary finesse which the author of Mark's gospel simply couldn't (or
      didn't want to) provide.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.